[briandear]

Why do we assume landlords are “well to do?” After paying the note, management, maintenance, taxes, etc., many properties net just a few hundred dollars per month, per unit, if that. Certainly there is capital appreciation, but there is also risk as well. Rental property ownership is a business like other businesses and subject to price pressures just like any other. We could argue that giving money to the poor simply makes well-to-do grocery store owners richer as well. Except grocery stores aren’t required to sell their products at discounts to poor people as a condition of doing business. Why do we expect housing owners to discount their product for a certain percentage of the population or else they aren’t allowed to operate? The difference is that there aren’t widespread restrictions on food production, so grocery stores are able to serve the market demand without having set-asides for specific groups. Want lower housing prices? Make it easier to supply houses. It really is that simple. The reason housing in Houston is affordable is because there is plenty of it and it’s relatively easy to build more. There isn’t a need for artificially “affordable” housing in Houston because the government there has a less hostile attitude towards building housing. In California, if you want to build something, you might get your plan denied if there is even a chance that some endangered worm is within a 50 mile radius or if some Palo Alto matron is afraid of “undesirables” living too close, or if there’s a chance someone’s view might be impeded. Building housing in the Bay Area is a total mess. I am not sure why Tokyo or Seoul style high-roses aren’t a thing in California — but that could be a solution if there was the political will to allow it.

[chrisdhoover]

Every landlord I ever had was middle class who had a second property to bring in a little income.